Prophet Muhammad vs Jesus Christ

Post Reply New Topic

There were also in fact first century accounts by Roman historians like Tacitus and Seutonius who wrote of how the early Christians were persecuted by both Roman and Jewish society. Kind of hard to have Christians without the founder Christ.

i worship the flying spaghetti monster and you can't prove he doesn't exist.

If you give us a good description of what it does, how and why, then I bet I can.

only believers can see him. he supports all things pasta. my particular denomination prefers whole wheat.

Unfortunately my list was not a complete list of prophets. I think the Cyrus Teed threat has ended though.



Cyrus Reed Teed (1839–1908) was a U.S. eclectic physician and alchemist turned religious leader and messiah. In 1869, claiming divine inspiration, Dr. Teed took on the name Koresh and proposed a new set of scientific and religious ideas he called Koreshanity, including a unique Hollow Earth theory that posits the Earth and sky exist inside the inner surface of a sphere.

In the 1870s, he founded in New York the Koreshan Unity, a commune based around his teachings. Other similar communities were established in Chicago and San Francisco. After 1894 the group concentrated itself in the small Florida town of Estero, seeking to build a "New Jerusalem" in that locale, peaking at 250 residents during the first decade of the 20th Century. Following Teed's death late in 1908 the group went into decline, finally disappearing in 1961, leaving the Koreshan State Historic Site behind.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_Teed

Other than the name Koresh, was there any connection between Tweed and David Koresh?

And it lives in the blanket that you carry in the crook of your arm that has the thumb that you suck on the end of it. Right??

As I avoid carbs, I'm afraid I must reject your god.

Yes. I have not even spoken of arguments for the crucifixion or of the historical reliability for the Gospels (and the rest of the New Testament.) Josephus also wrote about Jesus.

neither, at least muhammad was an actual historical figure.

1- the gospels were created by titus and vespasian with some help from their family historian, josephus, who was also of the pisco family. the gospels, when completed, ~ 70AD, was in fact, submitted to the roman senate to prove vespasian and his son are gods... the many stories of jesus in the gospels mirrors that of titus's campaigns in judea... fishers of men for example... that is a play on words on the battlefield, on the sea of galilee, where titus slayed so many jews, that titus was a 'fisher of men' with the sea choked up with dead bodies... Go read the gospels, along side the war of the jews by josephus, as well as the historical accounts of vespsaian and his son, titus.

2- paul, who was also called saul, and his other not so well known name, apollos, was a master builder, also lawless. the dead sea scrolls calls out paul/saul (apollos) of tarsus a 'great deceiver' and 'liar'. paul gives 3 accounts of his 'conversion' on the road to damascus and neither one agrees on the details... as well as paul saying one time about keeping the law, and another, about not keeping the law... paul is lawless and is the creator of what became christianity...


so; all your 'sources' of the resurrection is based on error information... your 12 accounts are based on stories created by Rome to enslave a people in Judea, it worked so well, it is still working today... circular logic at work...

besides, what is the difference between the passover lamb and the atonement sacrifice? when they say jesus is the passover lamb... this then would only apply to the first born...and it is not about even taking away sins, but that the angel of death passes over you... nothing to do with atonement...

At least Islam is monotheist, as was Abraham.... while christianity is polytheist; (trinitarian, or worship a triune god)...

Islam is a creation of the universal church, (catholic church), muhammad's wife, the one who did the 'interpretations' when muhammad went into trances and seizers, she was catholic.. Why is this virgin mary given much respect in islam?

from one source; in the earliest writings at the beginning of the catholic church in the 4th century, they had no story of the resurrection in their book of mark, it was added prior to the 6th century...

I have to read up on much of what you said before commenting. But...

Your claim that the Romans invented these stories to enslave the Jews makes no sense. Why would the Romans create a character that many Jews believed would overthrow Roman rule (though they misunderstood the purpose of the Messiah's coming)? Also, the Romans would not know or understand the Jewish scriptures enough to create a character that fulfilled so many Old Testament prophecies. If Romans created these stories, why were Christians later killed for believing them? How does it enslave a people to teach them about freedom? Jesus said that true freedom was found in him.

Now for your theological questions...

Jesus fulfilled ALL the Old Testament sacrificial laws in one act. He is both the Passover Lamb and the Atoning Sacrifice in one.

The Atoning Sacrifice in the O.T. was what temporarily satisfied the need for forgiveness of sin. That is why it had to be repeated. The sacrifice of an animal was a foreshadowing of the perfect sacrifice to come. Jesus was the perfect Atoning Sacrifice because he was human, yet sinless. In his perfection, he was able to be a suitable sacrifice. In his humanness, he was the perfect substitution so the sacrifice no longer had to be repeated.

The idea of him being the Passover Lamb is that the blood over the door frames of the houses told which houses were protected from the Angel of Death. This also was a foreshadowing of what was to come. It is about faith. The Hebrews in the O.T. story demonstrated faith in that they believed that putting the blood on their door frames would protect their family. Those who put their faith in Jesus are spiritually putting Jesus' blood on the door frames of their souls, so that when the day of Judgment comes, death will pass over them. Those who put their faith in Jesus Christ are promised eternal life.

You also misunderstand the doctrine of the Trinity. I do know it is hard to explain, but the best way I can describe it is a royal family. A Prince, though not the King, is still to be venerated. If a Prince is sent as a messenger to another country, it might as well be the King. Two separate people, two different roles, same family, same respect due, same kind of authority when it comes to dealing with the subjects of the kingdom. It is not treason to venerate the Prince because exalting the Prince is the same as exalting the King - one would be exalting the same family.

So we want to talk authenticity?

In Mark 12, Jesus speaks of the Torah (or the Pentateuch, the first 5 books of the Bible) as the book of Moses, the commonly accepted belief at the time (and for centuries afterwards).

Scholars now believe those books were compiled together from several sources. For example, there are two creation stories, side by side.

The first, Gen 1-Gen 2:4 has an order, with man being created last (after creatures etc). Written by an author who used the word Elohim for God, it's believed to have been written to show God's orderliness (I'm keeping it simple for brevity here). The writer also uses references to the old Ptolemaic system, where the planets and stars are fixed in a firmament above the unmoving earth.

The second creation story is from Gen 2:4 on into the fall story. It starts with man being created first (before creatures etc), and is a more anthropomorphic view, with relationships being an important part of the narrative. This author uses Yahweh for God. There are other parts where these two authors appear together, such as in the story of Noah's ark.

It's important to note, they are not thrown together to contradict each other. In tribal days (the roots of these stories), spiritual truths trumped historical accuracy. Mythos was performance in which these stories were passed down around the fire at night to keep the demons away (brevity again).

These days, the theories about the authorship have caused many arguments, about who and how many, but the core of it is still agreed upon, that the books are a compilation from several authors, several sources.

I learned about this while studying theology as an 18 year old. At the time, understanding the (asserted) intention behind the authorship and behind the compilation, I had no problem with it and it didn't add any doubt in my faith. It made sense and in some regards strengthened the logic of it.

But over the decades since, this knowledge has become a wedge against other issues. For example, why would Jesus refer to the Torah as Moses' work? He seemed well used to arguing with the priests in the synagog. He wouldn't just go along with what they believed for the sake of it.

I had this passage pointed out to me by a pentecostal pastor. He used it in support of Moses authorship, when all it did for me was add to my skepticism regarding Jesus. Curiously, it's generally reported that only fundamentalist Jews and fundamentalist Christians support Moses authorship.

My favourite Bible is the original Jerusalem Bible (as use in Catholic theology), owing to its use of original wording, such as using Elohim and Yahweh where they are used, instead of simplifying them to "God" like other Bibles do.

All of your "proof" is derived from one source - a collection of stories written by men to support their Patriarchy.

This Patriarchy has used the same book to support slavery, the oppression of women, and conquest by genocide for centuries. These also happen to be the same principles that America was founded upon.

If you want to cite books of legends as "proof" of your beliefs, then why not cite the Vedas, Upanishads, Mahabharata, Ramayana, Bhagavad Gita, Puranas, Manusmṛti, and Agamas?

Likely because, like many others, you believe only what you want to believe, and only because you were told to believe it.

Though Jesus' crucifixion has not been proven, there is nothing to disprove His existence nor His death by this means.

Crucifixion would have been considered a proper form of execution for rebellion, according to Roman law. Pilate's reasoning would have been also appropriate....if He was not rebelling or teaching revolution against Roman rule, the Romans would have cared less about religious spats within a conquered people.....and would have no reason for the time, effort, and expense of a public execution.

The biblical account of His death shows that it was desired by only corrupt religious leaders....no one else was threatened by His teaching.

To the masses, He was just one more itinerant street preacher/ rebbe.

Belief in His Resurrection is a choice, as is acceptance of His teachings as coming from One who was more than human.

Belief that a bit of wood came from His cross has nothing to do with His existence, teaching, or who He was or is.

The Shroud of Turin is inconsistent with the teaching of no image being worshipped or revered.